Cost To Be A Cheerleader?

Every activity children are involved in at school seems to be costly either financially or in time and energy expended. It's reasonable that the participates share in the cost of such activities.
What is unreasonable is having to pay $10.00, non-refundable, just to try out for the Cheerleader team. When I was recently made aware of this I found it hard to believe but it's true. I do not know how many children try out for cheerleader each year but if as few as fifty try out that's five hundred dollars. Where does that money go? What is it used for? Is it reasonable that a person pay simply to try out for a school activity?
Since selection to the team is an arbitrary decision and the number to be selected is limited for most no doubt this is just a contribution to some unknown fund used in some unknown way, should it be? Allen Barrett

School System Secrecy????

According to the "Pulaski Citizen" dated 16 March 2010 during a work session of the school board a recommendation was made that the school board adopt the policy of not making public the names of donors making gifts to the school system.

To withhold this information would not only be a violation of the state open records law but would open the door for those doing business with the school system to give kick-backs to those involved in negotiations. An example would be a milk vendor gives the school system a $10,000.00 gift a week later that same vendor is given a contract to supply milk and ice cream to the school system. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean there's any wrongdoing taking place but if this information isn't made public, well you can see the possibilities have greatly increased for wrongdoing.
Another example might result in special treatment of an individual. Would it be possible to buy a position on a sports team or academic award if the parents made a large monetary donation to the school?
I fear if this policy is adopted by the school board and secrecy is allowed to cover the activities and contributions of businesses and individuals the possibility for abuse is too great to justify. All gifts and the givers should be made public so there can be no questions as the the appropriateness of business being conducted by our officials. Allen Barrett

Why Did Commissioner Lovell Declare The Giles County Chief Deputy Unreliable?

In the County Commission Meeting Monday 15 March 2010. Commissioner Lovell declared that the Chief Deputy of the Giles County Sheriff's Office was unreliable.
Commissioner Wilburn stated that the Beer License that had been issued to the "Stop and Chat" store was invalid because not only was it too close to the church in Campbellsville it was even closer to the Public Library in Campbellsville.
When Commissioner Wilburn stated the Library was within the 400 foot distance, that had been made the standard by County Executive Vanzant and used to justify giving the permit, Commissioner Lovell stated, without being recognized to speak, that it was not that close. Commissioner Wilburn then repeated that it was less than 300 feet and had been officially measured. Commissioner Lovell again blurted out, without being properly recognized to speak by the Chair, that the distance wasn't correct and demanded of Commissioner Wilburn to know "who measured it you". Commissioner Wilburn stated that the Chief Deputy had measured it then the, the Chief Deputy stepped forward and confirmed that he had measured it and the distant as stated by Commissioner Wilburn was correct, at which time Commissioner Lovell, again without being recognized to speak, declared "it's not true and I don't believe it".
It is an official duty of the Chief Deputy, when requested, to establish the distance between places seeking to sale alcoholic beverages and churches/schools and/or Public Meeting places.
The arrogance of tyranny continues. Allen Barrett

Airport Information

After a visit to the airport I fine much that was previously believed about the airport and its operation, to not only have been clouded but in some instances plain untrue.
In a recent Budget Committee Meeting of County Commissioners it was announced that the county had been required to give the airport an unbudgeted amount of $55,000.00 last year and that they were to receive another $5,000.00 dollars of unbudgeted money this year, all of this was in addition to the regular amount that was budgeted for the airport by the county. This was information that primarily caused some on the Budget Committee to join with the County Executive when she announced her suggestion to sale the airport.
A more clear explanation of these expenditures reveals that the $55,000.00 was an amount the county had agreed to set aside to repave the runway more than ten years ago. The county had agreed to put aside $5,000.00 each year to be used when the time came to repave the runway, that way there would not be a requirement to take a huge amount out of the general fund at one time. The county unfortunately did not keep their side of the agreement and failed to set aside any money so when the time came last year they were required to take the full amount out of the general fund. The city had been setting aside money each year and thus did not have the expense of taking the full amount out at one time. Again this year the $5,000.00 was left out of the budget, it was reported to some as an oversight, but it was reported in the budget committee as a surprise expense.
So the question is just how much does the county/city contribute on a yearly basis to the airport and the answer is approximately $25,000.00 combined.
Almost every expense incurred by the airport has been paid for by money generated by the airport or from federal and state grants.
The airport is an asset to the city/county and seems to be almost self sufficient thanks in large part to the tremendous efforts by the airport manager Randy Jones.
Mr. Jones is paid approximately $25,000.00 a year in salary which is the amount of tax dollars given by the city/county. The amount of money received from the sale of gasoline and hanger rentals supplements Mr. Jones salary which when all things are considered isn't excessive. My belief is that as long as tax money isn't being used I'm not really concerned about how much he makes if he is satisfied.
I just appreciate greatly the efforts he has made to create a first class operation that all Giles Citizens can be proud of. Allen Barrett

Candidates For Office of Commissioner

Someone had asked for a listing of those running for commissioner seats. These are the names and districts of people who have picked up qualifying papers as of 10 AM today. Those who have turned in their qualifying papers have a (C) after there name.

1st District: Ramona FLACY; Rickey WATKINS; Chan Harris (C).

2nd District: David BAILEY; Tommy POPE (C); Stoney JACKSON (C); Tracy WILBURN.

3rd District: Tim RISNER; Okalene WALLS; David ADAMS (C); Wayne ASHFORD.

4th District: Troy HILL; Jack WOODARD: Roger REEDY; Tommy BEECH; David ROSS (C);
Edwin LOVELL; Judy LAVIANA.

5th District: Tommy POLLARD (C); Bill HOLT (C); Marcus HARNEY; Connie HOWELL.

6th District: Louise FAULKNER; Rose BROWN.

7th District: Allen BARRETT; Tommy CAMPBELL.

County Executive: Janet VANZANT (C); Scott STEWART (C).

Selective Application Of Rules

I posted this as a comment on a thread but then though I would open it as a subject unto it's self.
One thing was made abundantly clear in the County Commission Meeting this morning.... only those rules that are convenient will apply to the county executive.
During the meeting it was clearly presented by Commissioner Wilburn that the Tennessee Code Annotated and the Roberts rules of order were ignored by the county executive in her recent decision to veto the commissioners decision on the distance rules.
Mrs Vanzant simply dismissed each statement with the arrogance befitting the Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland who is quick to decree "off with their heads" at the slightest offense.
After she dismissed both the T.C.A. and Roberts Rules of Order as authorities over her she then demonstrated the convenience of selective application by citing those rules in refusing to recognize Commissioner Wilburn to speak until after everyone else had spoken. Yet when Commissioner Jackson stood, interrupted or started speaking before being recognized there was no corrective ruling from the chair.
Allen Barrett